When local news dies so does democracy Chuck Plunkett

Transcriber: Ivana Korom
Reviewer: Krystian Aparta

I’ve been a journalist
for more than 23 years,

at the “Arkansas Democrat-Gazette,”

the “Pittsburgh Tribune Review”

and most recently, “The Denver Post.”

(Applause)

When I started
at “The Denver Post” in 2003,

it was among the country’s
10 largest newspapers,

with an impressive subscriber base

and nearly 300 journalists.

At the time, I was in my 30s.

Any ambitious journalist that age

aspires to work for one
of the big national papers,

like “The New York Times”
or “The Wall Street Journal.”

But I was simply blown away

by my first few weeks
at “The Denver Post,”

and I thought,
“This is going to be my paper.

I can make a career right here.”

Well, seven years passed,

we were sold to a hedge fund,

Alden Global Capital.

Within a few years –

(Laughs)

(Laughter)

Some of you know this story.

(Laughter)

Within a few years,

buyouts ordered by past and present owners

would reduce the newsroom by nearly half.

And I understood.

The rule of thumb used to be
that 80 percent of a newspaper’s revenue

came from pricy print ads and classifieds.

With emerging giants like Google
and Facebook and Craigslist,

those advertizing dollars
were evaporating.

The entire industry was undergoing
a massive shift from print to digital.

Alden’s orders were to be digital first.

Take advantage of blogs,
video and social media.

They said that one day,

the money we made online would make up
for the money we lost in print.

But that day never came.

In 2013, we won a Pulitzer Prize

for covering the Aurora theater shooting.

Alden ordered that more
journalists be cut.

Again,

and again,

and again,

and again.

We were forced to say goodbye
to talented, hardworking journalists

we considered not just friends

but family.

Those of us left behind
were stretched impossibly thin,

covering multiple beats
and writing rushed articles.

Inside a windowless meeting room
in March of 2018,

we learned that 30 more would have to go.

This paper that once had 300 journalists

would now have 70.

And it didn’t make sense.

Here, we’d won multiple Pulitzer Prizes.

We shifted our focus
from print to digital,

we hit ambitious targets

and email from the brass
talked up the Post’s profit margins,

which industry experts pegged
at nearly 20 percent.

So if our company was so successful
and so profitable,

why was our newsroom getting
so much smaller and smaller?

I knew that what was happening in Colorado
was happening around the country.

Since 2004,

nearly 1,800 newsrooms have closed.

You’ve heard of food deserts.

These are news deserts.

They are communities,
often entire counties,

with little to zero
news coverage whatsoever.

Making matters worse,

many papers have become ghost ships,

pretending to sail with a newsroom

but really just wrapping ads
around filler copy.

More and more newsrooms are being sold off
to companies like Alden.

And in that meeting,

their intentions
couldn’t have been clearer.

Harvest what you can,

throw away what’s left.

So, working in secret
with a team of eight writers,

we prepared a special
Sunday Perspective section

on the importance of local news.

(Laughter)

The Denver rebellion
launched like a missile,

and went off like a hydrogen bomb.

[In An Extraordinary Act Of Defiance,

Denver Post Urges Its Owner
To Sell The Paper]

[‘Denver Post’ Editorial Board
Publicly Calls Out Paper’s Owner]

[On The Denver Post,
vultures and superheroes]

(Applause and cheers)

Clearly, we weren’t alone in our outrage.

But as expected, I was forced to resign.

(Laughter)

And a year later, nothing’s changed.

“The Denver Post”
is but a few lone journalists

doing their admirable best
in this husk of a once-great paper.

Now, at least some of you
are thinking to yourself,

“So what?”

Right?

So what?

Let this dying industry die.

And I kind of get that.

For one thing, the local news
has been in decline for so long

that many of you may not even remember

what it’s like to have
a great local paper.

Maybe you’ve seen
“Spotlight” or “The Paper,”

movies that romanticize
what journalism used to be.

Well, I’m not here
to be romantic or nostalgic.

I’m here to warn you
that when local news dies,

so does our democracy.

And that should concern you –

(Applause and cheers)

And that should concern you,

regardless of whether you subscribe.

Here’s why.

A democracy is a government of the people.

People are the ultimate source
of power and authority.

A great local newsroom acts like a mirror.

Its journalists see the community
and reflect it back.

That information is empowering.

Seeing, knowing, understanding –

this is how good decisions are made.

When you have a great local paper,

you have journalists sitting in
on every city council meeting.

Listening in to state house
and senate hearings.

Those important but, let’s face it,

sometimes devastatingly boring
committee hearings.

(Laughter)

Journalists discover the flaws
and ill-conceived measures

and those bills fail,
because the public was well-informed.

Readers go to the polls

and they know the pros and cons
behind every ballot measure,

because journalists
did the heavy lifting for them.

Even better,

researchers have found
that reading a local paper

can mobilize 13 percent
of nonvoters to vote.

Thirteen percent.

(Applause)

That’s the number that can change
the outcome of many elections.

When you don’t have a great local paper,

voters are left stranded at the polls,

confused,

trying to make their best guess
based on a paragraph of legalese.

Flawed measures pass.

Well-conceived but highly
technical measures fail.

Voters become more partisan.

Recently in Colorado, our governor’s race

had more candidates
than anyone can remember.

In years past,

journalists would have thoroughly vetted,

scrutinized, fact-checked,
profiled, debated

every contender in the local paper.

“The Denver Post” did its best.

But in the place of past levels
of rigorous reporting and research,

the public is increasingly
left to interpret

dog-and-pony-show stump speeches
and clever campaign ads

for themselves.

With advertizing costing what it does,

electability comes down to money.

So by the end of the primaries,

the only candidates left standing
were the wealthiest

and best-funded.

Many experienced
and praise-worthy candidates

never got oxygen,

because when local news declines,

even big-ticket races become pay-to-play.

Is it any surprise that our new governor

was the candidate worth
more than 300 million dollars?

Or that billionaire businessmen
like Donald Trump and Howard Schultz

can seize the political stage?

I don’t think this is what
the Founding Fathers had in mind

when they talked about free
and fair elections.

(Applause and cheers)

Now this is exactly why we can’t just rely
on the big national papers,

like “The Journal”
and “The Times” and “The Post.”

Those are tremendous papers,

and we need them now,
my God, more than ever before.

But there is no world
in which they could cover

every election in every county
in the country.

No.

The newsroom best equipped
to cover your local election

ought to be your local newsroom.

If you’re lucky and still have one.

When election day is over,

a great local paper is still there,
waiting like a watchdog.

When they’re being watched,

politicians have less power,

police do right by the public,

even massive corporations
are on their best behavior.

This mechanism that for generations
has helped inform and guide us

no longer functions the way it used to.

You know intimately what the poisoned
national discourse feels like,

what a mockery of reasoned
debate it has become.

This is what happens
when local newsrooms shutter

and communities across the country
go unwatched and unseen.

Until we recognize
that the decline of local news

has serious consequences for our society,

this situation will not improve.

A properly staffed
local newsroom isn’t profitable,

and in this age of Google and Facebook,

it’s not going to be.

If newspapers are vital to our democracy,

then we should fund them
like they’re vital to our democracy.

(Applause and cheers)

We cannot stand by
and let our watchdogs be put down.

We can’t let more communities
vanish into darkness.

It is time to debate
a public funding option

before the fourth estate disappears,

and with it, our grand
democratic experiment.

We need much more than a rebellion.

It is time for a revolution.

Thank you.

(Applause and cheers)

抄写员:Ivana Korom
审稿人:Krystian Aparta

在《阿肯色州民主党公报》

、《匹兹堡论坛报评论》

和最近的《丹佛邮报》担任记者已超过 23 年。

(掌声) 2003

年我开始
在《丹佛邮报》工作时,

它是全国
10 大报纸之一,

拥有令人印象深刻的订户群

和近 300 名记者。

那时,我已经 30 多岁了。

任何雄心勃勃的记者都

渴望为

《纽约时报》
或《华尔街日报》等大型全国性报纸工作。

但我

在“丹佛邮报”的最初几周简直让我大吃一惊

,我想,
“这将是我的论文。

我可以在这里开创事业。”

七年过去了,

我们被卖给了对冲基金

Alden Global Capital。

几年之内——

(笑)

(笑声)

你们有些人知道这个故事。

(笑声)

几年之内,

过去和现在的所有者订购的收购

将使新闻编辑室减少近一半。

我明白了。

过去的经验法则是
,报纸收入的 80%

来自昂贵的平面广告和分类广告。

随着谷歌、Facebook 和 Craigslist 等新兴巨头的出现

这些广告收入
正在蒸发。

整个行业正在经历
从印刷到数字的巨大转变。

奥尔登的命令首先是数字化的。

利用博客、
视频和社交媒体。

他们说有一天

,我们在网上赚的钱会
弥补我们在印刷品上损失的钱。

但那一天从未到来。

2013 年,我们

因报道极光剧院的拍摄而获得普利策奖。

奥尔登下令
裁减更多记者。

一次又一次,

一次又一次,

一次又一次。

我们被迫
告别才华横溢、勤奋工作的记者,

我们不仅将其视为朋友,

还视为家人。

我们这些被抛在后面的
人都被拉得很瘦,

覆盖多个节拍
,写着仓促的文章。 2018 年 3 月,

在一间没有窗户的会议室里

我们得知还要再去 30 人。

这份曾经有 300 名记者的报纸

现在有 70 名。

而且它没有任何意义。

在这里,我们赢得了多个普利策奖。

我们将重点
从印刷转移到数字,

我们实现了雄心勃勃的目标

,来自高层的电子邮件
谈到了邮政的利润率

,行业专家认为该
利润率接近 20%。

因此,如果我们的公司如此成功
且如此有利可图,

为什么我们的新闻编辑室
变得越来越小?

我知道科罗拉多州
正在发生的事情正在全国各地发生。

自 2004 年以来,

已有近 1,800 家新闻编辑室关闭。

你听说过食物沙漠。

这些是新闻沙漠。

他们是社区,
通常是整个县

,几乎没有
任何新闻报道。

更糟糕的是,

许多报纸已经变成了幽灵船,

假装与新闻编辑室一起航行,

但实际上只是
在填充文案周围包装广告。

越来越多的新闻编辑室被出售
给像奥尔登这样的公司。

在那次会议上,

他们的
意图再清楚不过了。

收获你能收获的,

扔掉剩下的。

因此
,我们与一个由八位作家组成的团队秘密合作,

准备了一个

关于本地新闻重要性的周日视角特别版块。

(笑声

) 丹佛叛乱
像导弹一样发射,

又像氢弹一样爆炸。

[在一次非同寻常的反抗中,

丹佛邮报敦促其
所有者出售报纸]

[“丹佛邮报”编辑委员会
公开呼吁报纸的所有者]

[丹佛邮报,
秃鹰和超级英雄]

(掌声和欢呼)

显然,我们是 在我们的愤怒中并不孤单。

但不出所料,我被迫辞职。

(笑声

) 一年后,一切都没有改变。

《丹佛邮报》
只是几位孤独的记者

,他们
在这份曾经伟大的报纸的外壳中尽其所能。

现在,至少你们
中的一些人在想,

“那又怎样?”

对?

所以呢?

让这个垂死的行业消亡。

我有点明白这一点。

一方面,本地新闻
的衰落已久

,以至于你们中的许多人甚至可能不记得

拥有
一家出色的本地报纸是什么感觉。

也许你看过
“聚光灯”或“报纸”,这些

电影将
过去的新闻浪漫化。

好吧,我来这里不是
为了浪漫或怀旧。

我在这里警告你
,当地方新闻消亡时

,我们的民主也会消亡。

这应该与您有关——

(掌声和欢呼

)这应该与您有关,

无论您是否订阅。

这就是为什么。

民主是人民的政府。


是权力和权威的最终来源。

一个伟大的地方新闻编辑室就像一面镜子。

它的记者看到社区
并将其反映回来。

这些信息是赋权的。

看到、知道、理解——

这就是做出好的决定的方式。

当您拥有一份出色的本地报纸时,

您就会有记者
参加每次市议会会议。

聆听州
议会和参议院的听证会。

那些重要但,让我们面对现实吧,

有时是极其无聊的
委员会听证会。

(笑声)

记者发现了缺陷
和考虑不周的措施

,这些法案失败了,
因为公众消息灵通。

读者去投票

,他们知道
每项投票措施背后的利弊,

因为记者
为他们做了繁重的工作。

更好的是,

研究人员发现
,阅读当地报纸

可以动员 13%
的非选民投票。

百分之十三。

(掌声)

这个数字可以改变
很多选举的结果。

当您没有出色的本地报纸时,

选民就会被困在投票站中,

感到困惑,

试图
根据一段法律术语做出最好的猜测。

有缺陷的措施通过。

精心构思但高度
技术性的措施失败了。

选民变得更加党派。

最近在科罗拉多州,我们州长

竞选的候选人
比任何人都记得的多。

在过去的几年里,

记者会对当地报纸上的每一个竞争者进行彻底的审查、

审查、事实
核查、描述和辩论

“丹佛邮报”尽力了。

但是,与过去
严格的报道和研究水平不同

,公众越来越多
地为自己解释

狗和小马表演的演讲
和巧妙的竞选广告

随着广告成本的增加,

可选性归结为金钱。

所以到初选结束时

,唯一剩下的候选人
是最富有

和资金最充足的。

许多经验丰富
且值得称赞的候选人

从未获得过氧气,

因为当当地新闻下降时,

即使是高价比赛也变成了付费比赛。

我们的新州长

是身价
超过 3 亿美元的候选人,这有什么奇怪的吗?

或者
像唐纳德特朗普和霍华德舒尔茨这样的亿万富翁商人

可以抓住政治舞台?

我不认为这
是开国元勋们在

谈论自由
和公平选举时所想的。

(掌声和欢呼

)这就是为什么我们不能仅仅
依靠全国性的大报,

比如《华尔街日报》
、《泰晤士报》和《邮报》。

这些都是巨大的文件

,我们现在
比以往任何时候都更需要它们,我的上帝。

但是没有一个
世界可以让他们覆盖该国

每个县的每一次选举

。最
适合报道当地选举的

新闻编辑室应该是当地的新闻编辑室。

如果你很幸运并且还有一个。

选举日结束后,

当地的大报纸还在,
像看门狗一样等待着。

当他们被监视时,

政客的权力就会减少,

警察会为公众做正确的事,

即使是大公司
也表现得最好。

这种几代人
以来帮助告知和指导我们的机制

不再像过去那样发挥作用。

你非常清楚被毒化的
国家话语是什么感觉,

它已成为对理性辩论的嘲弄。

当当地新闻编辑室关闭

,全国各地的社区
无人关注和看不见时,就会发生这种情况。

在我们认识
到地方新闻的衰落

对我们的社会造成严重后果之前,

这种情况不会得到改善。

一个配备适当人员的
本地新闻编辑室是没有利润的

,在这个谷歌和 Facebook 的时代,

它不会是。

如果报纸对我们的民主至关重要,

那么我们应该为它们提供资金,
就像它们对我们的民主至关重要一样。

(掌声和欢呼)

我们不能袖手旁观
,让我们的看门狗被放下。

我们不能让更多的社区
消失在黑暗中。

现在是时候

在第四级消失之前辩论公共资助方案了

,随之而来的是我们的宏大
民主实验。

我们需要的不仅仅是叛乱。

是时候进行一场革命了。

谢谢你。

(掌声和欢呼)